According to an article in today's New York Times and in yesterday's Huffington Post, the investigator charged by Alaska's Legislative Committee, before Sarah Palin was even being considered as a vice presidential candidate, found in a report that, among other things, Gov. Palin abused her power by violating the following provision of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act:

The New York Times has an excellent article today on Alan Greenspan in relation to the current financial crisis. It provides food for thought about government regulation at any level.

Essentially, Greenspan believes that the cause of the crisis is Wall Street decisionmakers not acting honorably. However, the decision to regulate, like the decision to pass ethics codes, is to guide people to act more honorably and penalize those who do not.

If you have a city car, why bother having your own? If you have a county cellphone, why bother having your own? If you have an honor system, why bother honoring it?

In Bellingham, Massachusetts, according to an article in the Milford Daily News, a town meeting moderator whose firm was also town attorney resigned as moderator when his firm was replaced as town attorney. He did this, he said, not out of spite, but because he would now represent clients before town boards and commissions, and this would conflict with his position as moderator.

But isn't there a more serious, ongoing conflict between being moderator of the town's legislative body and attorney for the town's executive body, the board of selectmen?

Update: Later in the day, according to a report in On the Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on the Treasury Secretary to strengthen the conflict of interest requirements discussed below.

The bailout, pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, is being contracted out to financial professionals, who will almost definitely have been deeply involved with the instruments they will be purchasing on behalf of the government. This opens the door to serious conflict of interest problems. They are the same as when a city hires a professional to deal with developments, for example, only on a more massive scale.

The Treasury Department has quickly put out interim conflict of interest rules, which place the burden on bidders to come up with their own conflict mitigation plans. But it seems to me that the interim rules are unnecessarily weak and vague. They are what-not-to-do guide for local governments dealing with contractors' conflicts. Here are the interim rules:

Updated Oct. 10, 2008; see final three paragraphs

New York City is in a crisis. But its mayor and 2/3 of its City Council will have to leave office due to term limits imposed by referendum in the 1990s.

Mayor Bloomberg wants to get rid of term limits, and Ronald Lauder, the billionaire who backed the term limits referenda campaigns, wants them suspended for the 2009 election, due to the financial crisis and its devastating effects on New York City. Bloomberg says that the issue could be put to the people again in 2010, so effectively, both are looking for a temporary fix that will apply to current officeholders.

But for that reason, it runs into not only a democracy issue (can a council override a law set by referendum?), but also into a government ethics issue:  is it appropriate to change a law only to preserve one's own political office?

"I just don't see it that there would be any motivation in such that people would be trying to evade Freedom of Information responsibilities."

When does an interest become an interest? When an official starts thinking about entering into a contract? When she starts negotiating the contract? When she agrees on the details? When she actually signs the contract? Or is this not really the question to focus on?

According to an article in the Aspen (CO) Daily News, this issue arose recently on the Aspen City Council.

Sometimes a conflict of interest can help a community save money. An official with a relationship to a company might be able to negotiate a better deal for his town, as long as his company gets the business and the credit. But is this legitimate, and even if it is, how should it be handled?